Board index » cppbuilder » Ping Gambit

Ping Gambit


2005-12-14 12:25:32 PM
cppbuilder8
Please email me < ideatum at hotmail dot com>. I have
something that I'd like to ask you.
~ JD
 
 

Re:Ping Gambit

Please have a look at this and clearify for me:
newsgroups.borland.com/cgi-bin/dnewsweb&utag=
or
tinyurl.com/yj8xcw
or
b.p.d.language.delphi.general
Iterate through form's controls in ancestor form?
Message #40655
~ JD
 

Re:Ping Gambit

"Remy Lebeau \(TeamB\)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote

[...] You already know what is happening.
Thank you.
~ JD
 

{smallsort}

Re:Ping Gambit

"JD" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Please have a look at this and clearify for me:
What is there to clearify? You already know what is happening.
Gambit
 

Re:Ping Gambit

"Remy Lebeau (TeamB)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote

"JD" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news:456ebfe2$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...

>Please have a look at this and clearify for me:

What is there to clearify? You already know what is happening.

Gaa! The word is "clarify".
Thanks, I finally got that off my chest. :^)
--
Bruce
 

Re:Ping Gambit

"Remy Lebeau \(TeamB\)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote

What is there to clearify? You already know what is happening.
Well I thought so. Kennedy 'sounds good' but it doesn't make
sense to me. Please reply to this:
newsgroups.borland.com/cgi-bin/dnewsweb&utag=
~ JD
 

Re:Ping Gambit

"Remy Lebeau \(TeamB\)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote

[...] In C++, ancestor constructors are called before
descendant constructors. In Delphi, the order is reversed
- descendant constructors are called before ancestor
constructors.
That implies that ancestor constructors are called irrespective
of the order. Is that correct?
Quote
What Kennedy said is accurate.
I can see where the calling order could be different but he
also asserts that anscestor constructors are not called unless
explicitly called using inherited.
If that's the case, then I'm totally lost on how a descendant
class can be constructed correctly.
~ JD
 

Re:Ping Gambit

"JD" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Kennedy 'sounds good' but it doesn't make sense to me.
It makes perfect sense when you understand how object creation actually
works in Delphi. In C++, ancestor constructors are called before descendant
constructors. In Delphi, the order is reversed - descendant constructors
are called before ancestor constructors. What Kennedy said is accurate.
You are thinking too much about C++. The creation rules are VERY different
in Delphi.
Gambit
 

Re:Ping Gambit

"JD" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
That implies that ancestor constructors are called irrespective
of the order. Is that correct?
Please read my reply in the other discussion thread. I already described
that in detail, and so has Kennedy.
Quote
I can see where the calling order could be different but he
also asserts that anscestor constructors are not called unless
explicitly called using inherited.
That is correct. They are always explicitally called. There are no
implicit constructor calls in Delphi like there are in C++.
Quote
If that's the case, then I'm totally lost on how a descendant
class can be constructed correctly.
That is because you do not yet understand how Delphi objects actually work
to begin with.
Gambit
 

Re:Ping Gambit

"Remy Lebeau \(TeamB\)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote

>[...] asserts that anscestor constructors are not called
>unless explicitly called using inherited.

That is correct. They are always explicitally called. There
are no implicit constructor calls in Delphi like there are
in C++.

>If that's the case, then I'm totally lost on how a
>descendant class can be constructed correctly.

That is because you do not yet understand how Delphi objects
actually work to begin with.
Kennedy posted this:
Quote
[...] Wait -- are you thinking that even if TFormC doesn't
declare its own constructor, the compiler generates one
anyway? That's not the case. If there is no constructor
declared for TFormC, then its constructor is exactly the
constructor of its ancestor, TFormB.
<picking nits>
That sure does seem like an implicit call to me.
</picking nits>
This was a big part that was missing from the puzzle but
it's sorted now.
Thanks for explaining for me.
~ JD